Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/66174/2016 on 24 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST-05,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 308/05
Police Station : Anand Parbat
Case No : 66174/2016
State
v.
Nand Kishore S/o Sh. Ram Nath,
R/o Plot No. 84, Bharat Vihar B,
Agra Road, Jaipur.
Date of institution of case : 18.05.2006
Date of reserving the judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 66174/2016 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 01.11.2005 3. Date of institution of the case: 18.05.2006 4. Name of the complainant: Ramesh Chander Bansal 5. Name of the accused: Nand Kishore 6. Offence complained or proved: 336 IPC 7. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty" 8. Final Order: Convicted. 9. Date of Final Order: 24.09.2018 FIR No. 308/05 State v. Nand Kishore 1 of 6 PS Anand Parbat BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 01.11.2005 at about 11:45 PM at house no. 293, Gali no. 9, Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi which belonged to the complainant Ramesh Chander Bansal who had fire crackers shop at the above stated address had caught fire and got demolished as the accused had thrown a lighted cracker (Anar) on the shop and in the process of extinguishing fire, the wife of the complainant namely Rakmani Devi had recieved burn injuries. The FIR No. 308/05 was registered at police station Anand Parbat and the investigation commenced.
2. After the completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court under section 336 IPC. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the summons were issued to the accused. After the appearance of the accused, the documents under section 207 CrPC were supplied to the accused.
3. The charge was framed for offences punishable under section 336 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the prosecution evidence.
4. In prosecution evidence, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the matter was FIR No. 308/05 State v. Nand Kishore 2 of 6 PS Anand Parbat kept for the statement of the accused. The same was recorded on 16.02.2018. The accused did not lead the defense evidence. Thereafter, the final arguments were heard and matter was kept for orders. I have given anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the accused and the State.
5. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the ingredients of the offences charged :
Section 336 IPC. Act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
6. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable to the facts of the present case. It is settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is also settled that primary burden of proof for proving offence in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on the accused. It has to be seen whether the prosecution had been able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 308/05 State v. Nand Kishore 3 of 6
PS Anand Parbat
7. To prove the case against the accused the prosecution was obliged to prove that accused was :-
- present outside the house no. 293, gali no. 9, Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat on 01.11.2005 and
- he had thrown a lighted cracker on the shop of the complainant at above stated premises due to which wife of the complainant Rakmani Devi received simple injuries.
8. In the present case, the star witnesses of the prosecution are the Ramesh Chand Bansal and Rakmani Devi who are the aggrieved persons. The complainant Ramesh Chand Bansal was examined as PW1 who has deposed that on 01.11.2005 at about 11:45 PM, he alongwith his wife and children were sitting at their shop of crackers and stationery by the road side and accused was lightning crackers and threw one lighted cracker at his shop due to which entire shop got demolished and his wife sustained burn injuries on her legs. The witness also produced three photographs of the demolished shop which are Mark A, B and C. The statement given to the police by witness is Ex. PW1/A. The witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity. The PW3 Rakmani Devi has deposed that his husband was running a shop of toys and stationery at house no. 293, Street no. 9, Nehru Nagar and took license of selling fire crackers on the festival of Diwali and were selling the fire crackers on 01.11.2005. When they were about to close the shop, FIR No. 308/05 State v. Nand Kishore 4 of 6 PS Anand Parbat the accused threw a burning Anar at their shop due to which their shop caught fire and while trying to control the fire, she sustained burn injuries on her legs. The witness identified the photographs of the demolished shop. The witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
9. The registration of the present FIR was proved by PW2 ASI Raj Kumar who deposed that on 04.11.2005, he was posted as Duty officer, PS Anand Parbat and at about 1:17 PM, he had received a rukka from ASI Om Parkash and he had registered the FIR on the basis of the same. The witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity. The witness PW4 Retd. ASI Om Parkash has deposed that on 04.11.2005, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat and on that day, the complainant Ramesh Bansal came and lodged a complaint regarding the fire caused to his shop by a burning fire cracker on 01.11.2005 and the same was caused due to the negligence of accused Nand Kishore. He recorded the statement of the complainant which is Ex. PW4/A and got the FIR registered. The witness then went to the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW4/B. Thereafter, he arrested the accused on 20.11.2005 vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/C and conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW4/D and released the accused on bail. The witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
10. The testimony of the witnesses remains unquestioned in the present FIR No. 308/05 State v. Nand Kishore 5 of 6 PS Anand Parbat case as the accused did not cross examine the witnesses despite opportunity. The PW1 and PW3 have categorically identified the accused as the person who has thrown the lighted Anar (fire cracker) at their shop due to which their shop caught fire and got destroyed. Both the witnesses are in tandem with regard to the date, time and place of incident. The photographs produced by the witnesses with regard to the place of incident shows that the entire shop got gutted in fire. The PW4 has established the registration of the FIR and recording of the statement of the complainant on the basis of which he arrested the accused. Nothing contrary has come on record to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses. The act of the accused had put the safety of the PW1 and PW3 in danger as the PW3 had received burn injuries. The accused was rash as he had thrown a lighted fire cracker at the fire cracker shop of the complainant despite knowing that it will endanger human life or personal safety of the others. It was a deliberate act on the part of the accused which is covered under rashness. Thus, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Nand Kishore is hereby convicted for the offence under section 336 IPC. Copy of the order be given free of cost to the accused.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2018.09.24
17:36:43 +0530
Announced in open Court (ABHISHEK KUMAR)
on 24th day of September 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate
West-05, Delhi
FIR No. 308/05 State v. Nand Kishore 6 of 6
PS Anand Parbat